\chapter{Chapter 3: System Architecture and Planning Tasks}

\section{Overview}

System Architecture \& Planning Tasks represent the most complex category of Claude Code development work. These tasks involve designing and implementing multi-component systems that require careful coordination, integration planning, and often multi-agent approaches. Success depends heavily on structured conversation design and systematic decomposition of complex requirements.

\subsection{\textbf{Key Characteristics}}
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Scope}: Multi-component system design and implementation
\item \textbf{Complexity}: Very High (4-5 on complexity scale)
\item \textbf{Typical Duration}: Multiple sessions spanning days to weeks
\item \textbf{Success Factors}: Clear requirements analysis, systematic decomposition, integration planning
\item \textbf{Common Patterns}: Requirements → Architecture → Component Design → Integration → Validation
\end{itemize}

\subsection{\textbf{When to Use This Task Type}}
\begin{itemize}
\item Building systems with 3+ major components
\item Projects requiring coordination between multiple agents or developers
\item Applications needing complex integrations (databases, APIs, external services)
\item Systems with sophisticated workflow management or state coordination
\item Projects where architecture decisions significantly impact implementation complexity
\end{itemize}

\section{Real-World Examples from Session Analysis}

\subsection{\textbf{Example 1: AI Company Simulation System}}
\begin{lstlisting}[language=bash]
Task: Develop a multi-agent AI company simulation with Manager, Workers, HR, and Assistant roles

Initial Prompt Pattern:
"I want develop a software that use AI worker to simulate a technical company: 
this company has four roles: one manager, one assistant, one HR, multiple workers, 
multiple agents (each worker has multiple agents). [detailed role descriptions...]"

Key Architecture Elements:
\begin{itemize}
\item Multiple AI agent roles with distinct responsibilities
\item Document-based communication system
\item Memory management framework integration
\item External Claude CLI agent integration
\item Dynamic task assignment and monitoring
\end{itemize}
\end{lstlisting}

\subsection{\textbf{Example 2: Universal Build Management System}}
\begin{lstlisting}[language=bash]
Task: Create comprehensive Python-based build and log management system

Evolution Pattern:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Initial: Fix comma-separated solver specification in test scripts
\item Expanded: Full "GCR Solver Manager" system  
\item Generalized: Universal package for C/C++/CUDA/HIP projects
\item Simplified: Focused solution with SQLite backend
\end{enumerate}

Architecture Requirements:
\begin{itemize}
\item Cross-language build system support
\item Log analysis and comparison capabilities
\item Test execution orchestration
\item Database integration for results tracking
\end{itemize}
\end{lstlisting}

\subsection{\textbf{Example 3: Claude Code Usage Monitor}}
\begin{lstlisting}[language=bash]
Task: Convert analysis script to complete monitoring package with web interface

System Components:
\begin{itemize}
\item Command-line tool (ccwork)
\item Web server with real-time dashboard
\item Session analysis engine
\item Performance optimization features
\item API endpoints for programmatic access
\end{itemize}
\end{lstlisting}

\section{The System Architecture Meta-Template}

\subsection{\textbf{Phase 1: Requirements Analysis and System Scoping (25-35% of effort)}}

\subsubsection{\textbf{Requirements Discovery Template}}
\begin{lstlisting}[language=bash]
\section{System Architecture Planning Session}

\subsection{Initial Requirements Gathering}
\textbf{Primary Objective}: [What is the main system goal?]
\textbf{Core User Stories}: [3-5 essential user workflows]
\textbf{Success Criteria}: [How will we measure success?]
\textbf{Constraints}: [Technical, resource, and timeline limitations]

\subsection{System Boundaries}
\textbf{In Scope}: [Components and features to include]
\textbf{Out of Scope}: [Explicitly excluded elements]
\textbf{External Dependencies}: [Required integrations and services]
\textbf{Future Considerations}: [Planned extensions and scalability needs]

\subsection{Stakeholder Analysis}
\textbf{Primary Users}: [Who will use this system?]
\textbf{Administrators}: [Who will maintain and operate it?]
\textbf{Integrators}: [What other systems need to connect?]
\textbf{Decision Makers}: [Who approves architecture decisions?]
\end{lstlisting}

\subsubsection{\textbf{Domain Analysis Template}}
\begin{lstlisting}[language=bash]
\subsection{Domain Complexity Assessment}
\textbf{Data Complexity}: [Simple/Medium/High - number and relationships of data entities]
\textbf{Process Complexity}: [Simple/Medium/High - workflow and business logic complexity] 
\textbf{Integration Complexity}: [Simple/Medium/High - external system dependencies]
\textbf{User Interface Complexity}: [Simple/Medium/High - interaction and presentation needs]

\subsection{Risk Assessment}
\textbf{Technical Risks}: [Unknown technologies, performance concerns, scalability issues]
\textbf{Integration Risks}: [External dependencies, API stability, data consistency]
\textbf{Timeline Risks}: [Complexity underestimation, dependency delays]
\textbf{Resource Risks}: [Skill gaps, availability constraints]
\end{lstlisting}

\subsection{\textbf{Phase 2: Architecture Design and Component Planning (35-45% of effort)}}

\subsubsection{\textbf{High-Level Architecture Template}}
\begin{lstlisting}[language=bash]
\section{System Architecture Design}

\subsection{Architectural Style}
\textbf{Primary Pattern}: [Microservices/Monolithic/Layered/Event-Driven/etc.]
\textbf{Communication Style}: [Synchronous/Asynchronous/Mixed]
\textbf{Data Management}: [Centralized/Distributed/Federated]

\subsection{Core Components}
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textbf{[Component Name]}
\end{enumerate}
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Responsibility}: [Primary function]
\item \textbf{Interfaces}: [How it connects to other components]
\item \textbf{Technology}: [Implementation approach]
\item \textbf{Complexity}: [Simple/Medium/High]
\end{itemize}

\begin{enumerate}
\item \textbf{[Component Name]}
\end{enumerate}
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Responsibility}: [Primary function]
\item \textbf{Interfaces}: [How it connects to other components]
\item \textbf{Technology}: [Implementation approach]
\item \textbf{Complexity}: [Simple/Medium/High]
\end{itemize}

[Continue for all major components...]

\subsection{Integration Points}
\textbf{Data Flow}: [How information moves through the system]
\textbf{Error Handling}: [How errors propagate and are managed]
\textbf{Monitoring}: [How system health is tracked]
\textbf{Configuration}: [How components are configured and coordinated]
\end{lstlisting}

\subsubsection{\textbf{Component Decomposition Template}}
\begin{lstlisting}[language=bash]
\subsection{Component Breakdown}

For each major component:

\subsubsection{[Component Name] Detailed Design}
\textbf{Core Responsibilities}:
\begin{itemize}
\item [Primary function 1]
\item [Primary function 2] 
\item [Primary function 3]
\end{itemize}

\textbf{Input/Output Interfaces}:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Inputs}: [Data/events received from other components]
\item \textbf{Outputs}: [Data/events sent to other components]
\item \textbf{Configuration}: [Settings and parameters needed]
\end{itemize}

\textbf{Internal Structure}:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Modules}: [Internal sub-components or modules]
\item \textbf{Data}: [Internal data structures and state]
\item \textbf{Algorithms}: [Key processing logic]
\end{itemize}

\textbf{Dependencies}:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Required Services}: [Other components this depends on]
\item \textbf{External Libraries}: [Third-party dependencies]
\item \textbf{Configuration Dependencies}: [Settings from other components]
\end{itemize}

\textbf{Testing Strategy}:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Unit Testing}: [Internal logic verification]
\item \textbf{Integration Testing}: [Interface verification]
\item \textbf{Performance Testing}: [If applicable]
\end{itemize}
\end{lstlisting}

\subsection{\textbf{Phase 3: Implementation Planning and Agent Coordination (20-30% of effort)}}

\subsubsection{\textbf{Development Task Decomposition Template}}
\begin{lstlisting}[language=bash]
\section{Implementation Planning}

\subsection{Development Phases}
\textbf{Phase 1: Core Infrastructure} [Timeline: X weeks]
\begin{itemize}
\item [Task 1]: [Description] - [Agent/Developer assignment]
\item [Task 2]: [Description] - [Agent/Developer assignment]
\item [Task 3]: [Description] - [Agent/Developer assignment]
\end{itemize}

\textbf{Phase 2: Component Implementation} [Timeline: X weeks]
\begin{itemize}
\item [Component A Implementation]: [Agent assignment]
\item [Component B Implementation]: [Agent assignment]
\item [Component Integration]: [Lead developer]
\end{itemize}

\textbf{Phase 3: System Integration} [Timeline: X weeks]
\begin{itemize}
\item [Integration testing]: [QA agent]
\item [Performance optimization]: [Performance agent]
\item [Documentation]: [Documentation agent]
\end{itemize}

\subsection{Parallel Development Opportunities}
\textbf{Independent Components}: [Components that can be developed simultaneously]
\textbf{Shared Infrastructure}: [Common elements that must be completed first]
\textbf{Testing Streams}: [Testing that can run parallel to development]

\subsection{Integration Milestones}
\textbf{Milestone 1}: [Core infrastructure complete]
\textbf{Milestone 2}: [Individual components functional]
\textbf{Milestone 3}: [Basic integration working]
\textbf{Milestone 4}: [System integration complete]
\textbf{Milestone 5}: [Production ready]
\end{lstlisting}

\subsubsection{\textbf{Agent Coordination Template}}
\begin{lstlisting}[language=bash]
\subsection{Multi-Agent Development Strategy}

\subsubsection{Agent Role Assignments}
\textbf{Architecture Agent}: [Overall system design and coordination]
\textbf{Component Agents}: [Specific component implementation]
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{[Component Name] Agent}: [Specific responsibilities]
\item \textbf{[Component Name] Agent}: [Specific responsibilities]
\end{itemize}
\textbf{Integration Agent}: [Component integration and testing]
\textbf{Documentation Agent}: [System documentation and guides]
\textbf{Testing Agent}: [Test strategy and implementation]

\subsubsection{Communication Protocols}
\textbf{Status Updates}: [How agents report progress]
\textbf{Issue Escalation}: [How problems are communicated]
\textbf{Decision Making}: [How architecture decisions are made and communicated]
\textbf{Code Review}: [How code quality is maintained across agents]

\subsubsection{Coordination Mechanisms}
\textbf{Daily Coordination}: [Brief status and blocking issues]
\textbf{Weekly Planning}: [Progress review and next phase planning]
\textbf{Milestone Reviews}: [Comprehensive progress and quality assessment]
\end{lstlisting}

\section{Architecture Decision Patterns}

\subsection{\textbf{Technology Stack Selection}}

\subsubsection{\textbf{Decision Framework Template}}
\begin{lstlisting}[language=bash]
\section{Technology Decision: [Decision Name]}

\subsection{Context}
\textbf{Problem}: [What needs to be decided?]
\textbf{Constraints}: [Technical, resource, timeline constraints]
\textbf{Success Criteria}: [How will we evaluate options?]

\subsection{Options Considered}
\textbf{Option 1: [Technology/Approach]}
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Pros}: [Advantages]
\item \textbf{Cons}: [Disadvantages]  
\item \textbf{Complexity}: [Implementation complexity rating]
\item \textbf{Risk}: [Technical and integration risks]
\end{itemize}

\textbf{Option 2: [Technology/Approach]}
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Pros}: [Advantages]
\item \textbf{Cons}: [Disadvantages]
\item \textbf{Complexity}: [Implementation complexity rating]
\item \textbf{Risk}: [Technical and integration risks]
\end{itemize}

\subsection{Decision}
\textbf{Chosen Option}: [Selected technology/approach]
\textbf{Rationale}: [Why this option was selected]
\textbf{Implications}: [What this means for other system components]
\textbf{Review Date}: [When this decision should be reconsidered]
\end{lstlisting}

\subsection{\textbf{Integration Strategy Patterns}}

\subsubsection{\textbf{Service Integration Template}}
\begin{lstlisting}[language=bash]
\section{Integration Design: [Integration Name]}

\subsection{Integration Requirements}
\textbf{Source System}: [System providing data/functionality]
\textbf{Target System}: [System consuming data/functionality]
\textbf{Data Volume}: [Expected transaction volume]
\textbf{Performance Requirements}: [Latency, throughput needs]
\textbf{Reliability Requirements}: [Availability, error tolerance]

\subsection{Integration Approach}
\textbf{Pattern}: [API calls/Message queues/Database sharing/File exchange]
\textbf{Protocol}: [HTTP REST/GraphQL/Message broker/etc.]
\textbf{Data Format}: [JSON/XML/Binary/etc.]
\textbf{Authentication}: [API keys/OAuth/Certificates/etc.]

\subsection{Error Handling Strategy}
\textbf{Retry Logic}: [How failed operations are retried]
\textbf{Fallback Behavior}: [What happens when integration fails]
\textbf{Monitoring}: [How integration health is monitored]
\textbf{Alerting}: [When and how problems are reported]
\end{lstlisting}

\section{Common Architecture Patterns}

\subsection{\textbf{Multi-Agent Coordination Pattern}}

This pattern appears frequently in complex system implementations:

\begin{lstlisting}[language=bash]
\section{Multi-Agent System Architecture}

\subsection{Agent Hierarchy}
\textbf{Coordinator Agent}: Overall system orchestration
\textbf{Specialist Agents}: Domain-specific implementation
\textbf{Integration Agent}: Cross-component integration
\textbf{Monitor Agent}: System health and performance

\subsection{Communication Structure}
\textbf{Command Flow}: Coordinator → Specialists
\textbf{Status Flow}: Specialists → Monitor → Coordinator
\textbf{Issue Escalation}: Any Agent → Coordinator → Human
\textbf{Knowledge Sharing}: Specialists ↔ Integration ↔ Documentation
\end{lstlisting}

\subsection{\textbf{Evolutionary Architecture Pattern}}

Many successful projects follow this progression:

\begin{lstlisting}[language=bash]
\section{Evolutionary Development Stages}

\subsection{Stage 1: Minimal Viable System}
\begin{itemize}
\item Core functionality only
\item Simple integrations
\item Basic error handling
\item Proof of concept validation
\end{itemize}

\subsection{Stage 2: Feature Expansion}
\begin{itemize}
\item Enhanced functionality
\item Additional integrations
\item Improved error handling
\item Performance optimization
\end{itemize}

\subsection{Stage 3: Production Hardening}
\begin{itemize}
\item Comprehensive monitoring
\item Robust error recovery
\item Security hardening
\item Scalability optimization
\end{itemize}

\subsection{Stage 4: Advanced Features}
\begin{itemize}
\item Advanced analytics
\item Machine learning integration
\item Advanced workflows
\item Ecosystem integration
\end{itemize}
\end{lstlisting}

\section{Quality Gates and Validation}

\subsection{\textbf{Architecture Review Template}}
\begin{lstlisting}[language=bash]
\section{Architecture Review Checkpoint}

\subsection{Design Quality Assessment}
\begin{itemize}
\item [ ] \textbf{Clarity}: Is the architecture clearly documented and understood?
\item [ ] \textbf{Completeness}: Are all major components and interactions defined?
\item [ ] \textbf{Consistency}: Do component interfaces align properly?
\item [ ] \textbf{Feasibility}: Can this architecture be implemented with available resources?
\end{itemize}

\subsection{Technical Quality Assessment}
\begin{itemize}
\item [ ] \textbf{Performance}: Will this architecture meet performance requirements?
\item [ ] \textbf{Scalability}: Can the system grow to handle increased load?
\item [ ] \textbf{Reliability}: Are failure modes identified and addressed?
\item [ ] \textbf{Security}: Are security considerations properly integrated?
\end{itemize}

\subsection{Implementation Quality Assessment}
\begin{itemize}
\item [ ] \textbf{Complexity Management}: Is complexity appropriately distributed?
\item [ ] \textbf{Developer Experience}: Will this be maintainable by the development team?
\item [ ] \textbf{Testing Strategy}: Can all components be effectively tested?
\item [ ] \textbf{Deployment Strategy}: Is the deployment approach realistic?
\end{itemize}

\textbf{Review Decision}: [Approve/Request Changes/Major Revision Required]
\textbf{Key Issues}: [Major concerns that must be addressed]
\textbf{Next Steps}: [Required actions before proceeding]
\end{lstlisting}

\subsection{\textbf{Integration Testing Strategy}}
\begin{lstlisting}[language=bash]
\section{System Integration Validation}

\subsection{Component Integration Tests}
\textbf{[Component A] ↔ [Component B]}:
\begin{itemize}
\item [ ] Data flow validation
\item [ ] Error handling verification
\item [ ] Performance baseline establishment
\item [ ] Security verification
\end{itemize}

\subsection{End-to-End Workflow Tests}
\textbf{[Workflow Name]}: [User story or business process]
\begin{itemize}
\item [ ] Happy path validation
\item [ ] Error condition handling
\item [ ] Performance validation
\item [ ] Data consistency verification
\end{itemize}

\subsection{System Load Tests}
\textbf{Performance Baseline}: [Expected normal load performance]
\textbf{Stress Testing}: [Performance under 2x normal load]
\textbf{Failure Recovery}: [System recovery after component failures]
\end{lstlisting}

\section{Best Practices for System Architecture Tasks}

\subsection{\textbf{Planning Phase Best Practices}}

\subsubsection{\textbf{Start with User Outcomes}}
Always begin architecture planning with clear user value propositions rather than technical features.

\begin{lstlisting}[language=bash]
\\textcolor{red}{$\\times$} Poor Start:
"We need a microservices architecture with Docker and Kubernetes"

\\textcolor{green}{$\\checkmark$} Good Start:  
"Users need to process scientific simulations with 10x current performance while maintaining result accuracy. The system should handle 100+ concurrent users and integrate with existing HPC infrastructure."
\end{lstlisting}

\subsubsection{\textbf{Use Iterative Architecture Design}}
Develop architecture through multiple refinement cycles rather than trying to perfect it upfront.

\begin{lstlisting}[language=bash]
\section{Architecture Evolution Strategy}
\textbf{Iteration 1}: Core functionality and basic integration (Week 1)
\textbf{Iteration 2}: Enhanced features and improved integration (Week 2)
\textbf{Iteration 3}: Performance optimization and advanced features (Week 3)
\textbf{Iteration 4}: Production hardening and monitoring (Week 4)
\end{lstlisting}

\subsubsection{\textbf{Document Decisions and Rationale}}
Maintain clear records of architectural decisions and their reasoning.

\subsection{\textbf{Implementation Phase Best Practices}}

\subsubsection{\textbf{Component Independence}}
Design components to be as independent as possible to enable parallel development.

\subsubsection{\textbf{Integration-First Testing}}
Test integration points early and frequently rather than waiting for complete component implementation.

\subsubsection{\textbf{Progressive Integration}}
Integrate components incrementally rather than attempting big-bang integration.

\section{Common Anti-Patterns}

\subsection{\textbf{The "Over-Architecture" Anti-Pattern}}
Designing overly complex systems for simple requirements.

\begin{lstlisting}[language=bash]
\\textcolor{red}{$\\times$} Over-Architected:
Simple data processing task → Microservices + Message queues + Multiple databases + Complex orchestration

\\textcolor{green}{$\\checkmark$} Right-Sized:
Simple data processing task → Single service + File-based workflow + SQLite database
\end{lstlisting}

\subsection{\textbf{The "Under-Specification" Anti-Pattern}}
Starting implementation without adequate architecture planning.

\begin{lstlisting}[language=bash]
\\textcolor{red}{$\\times$} Under-Specified:
"Let's start building and figure out the architecture as we go"

\\textcolor{green}{$\\checkmark$} Properly Specified:
"Let's design the core components and their interfaces first, then implement iteratively"
\end{lstlisting}

\subsection{\textbf{The "Integration Afterthought" Anti-Pattern}}
Focusing on individual components without considering integration complexity.

\begin{lstlisting}[language=bash]
\\textcolor{red}{$\\times$} Integration Ignored:
Perfect individual components that don't work together

\\textcolor{green}{$\\checkmark$} Integration Considered:
Components designed with integration requirements as primary consideration
\end{lstlisting}

\section{Advanced Techniques}

\subsection{\textbf{Architecture as Code}}
Define system architecture using code-based tools that can be validated and evolved.

\subsection{\textbf{Domain-Driven Design Integration}}
Use domain modeling techniques to ensure architecture aligns with business requirements.

\subsection{\textbf{Event Storming for Complex Workflows}}
Use collaborative modeling techniques to understand complex business processes before designing system architecture.

---

\textit{Next: \href{04-code-debugging-builds.md}{Chapter 4: Code Debugging & Build Fixes}}